People v. Wood
127 N.E.3d 1
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In March 2013 Alexander Wood left an angry, profane voicemail at the public defender’s office saying he "dreamed about revenge" and that he prayed for the "death and destruction" of Judge Anthony Calabrese and others involved in his case.
- Five days later an assistant public defender played the voicemail for Judge Calabrese and an assistant State’s Attorney; the judge perceived it as a threat, changed routines, and reported security concerns.
- Wood was later identified as the caller, arrested, tried by jury, convicted under the statute prohibiting threatening a public official, and sentenced to two years in prison.
- Wood admitted making the call but testified he intended the message for the public defender, not the judge, and claimed the statements expressed anger and wishes, not an intent to commit violence.
- The State emphasized context (blocked after-hours call, named the judge, Wood’s prior phone-threat conviction), while Wood argued the voicemail was hyperbolic, non‑specific, not a "true threat," and that he did not knowingly transmit it to the judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the voicemail constituted a "true threat" under the statute | The language (praying for the judge’s death/destruction; dreaming of revenge) and context could be reasonably viewed as threatening | Statements expressed wishes and anger, not a serious intent to commit unlawful violence; lacked specificity and intent to act | Not a true threat as a matter of law — statements were aspirational/hyperbolic and did not communicate intent to commit violence |
| Whether defendant knowingly communicated a threat to the judge (directly or indirectly) | Indirect transmission can support conviction (relying on cases where threats made to personnel reasonably conveyed to officials) | Wood intended the message for the public defender’s office and there was no evidence he knew it would be relayed to the judge | Reversal: State failed to prove Wood knowingly transmitted the communication to Judge Calabrese |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (defines "true threat" as a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence)
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (speech‑threat prosecutions require proof of speaker’s intent and that a reasonable listener would view it as threatening)
- Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (context is critical in assessing whether speech is a true threat)
- People v. Peterson, 306 Ill. App. 3d 1091 (1999) (distinguishable case where letters conveyed explicit demands and consequences, supporting intimidation‑type convictions)
- People v. Kirkpatrick, 365 Ill. App. 3d 927 (2006) (elements of threatening a public official statute)